My 2012 Senate predictions: GOP +6

[RogueBeaver]

Democrats:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia


Republicans:
Arizona
Indiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming



Republican pick-ups:
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Virginia
Wisconsin

Tossup:

Ohio
Florida


Contested Primaries:

AZ: Jeff Flake (R), Terry Goddard (D)
CT: Chris Murphy (D), Linda McMahon (R)
FL: Connie Mack (R)
HI: Mazie Hirono (D), Linda Lingle (R)
IN: Richard Lugar (R)
MI: Pete Hoekstra (R)
MO: Sarah Steelman (R)
NM: Martin Heinrich (D), Heather Wilson (R)
TX: Ted Cruz (R)
WI: Tommy Thompson (R)

[Kevin]

I'd add OH and FL to the list of perspective pickups, as even though Brown and Nelson are ahead for now they are going to most likely face a well funded and appealing GOP opponent. In addition to the fact that over the last 4 years they both have casted some pretty unpopular votes that they are going to have to answer to when they go back home to campaign next summer and Fall.

[MilesC56]

I'd add OH and FL to the list of perspective pickups, as even though Brown and Nelson are ahead for now they are going to most likely face a well funded and appealing GOP opponent.

The GOP Primary in Florida is already starting to get nasty between Hasner and LeMieux; the Republican nominee could come out as less "appealing" in the general election.

[RogueBeaver]

If Mandel continues closing the gap at his current rate, he'll be tied with Brown by January. So I'd reclassify OH as "Tossup." As for Florida, the Greer trial will render LeMieux radioactive (and he already has base problems) and Hasner's dead in the water for now. I'd still put that Likely D in the interim.

[MilesC56]

If Mandel continues closing the gap at his current rate, he'll be tied with Brown by January.

Eh, I'm not sure if I'd jump to that conclusion; I really doubt Mandel will gain 7 points every time PPP polls OH until January....I do agree that the race will tighten though.

Even though Mandel made headway, Brown still held steady at 48%.

[RogueBeaver]

If Mandel continues closing the gap at his current rate, he'll be tied with Brown by January.

Eh, I'm not sure if I'd jump to that conclusion; I really doubt Mandel will gain 7 points every time PPP polls OH until January....I do agree that the race will tighten though.

Even though Mandel made headway, Brown still held steady at 48%.

Not 7 points, but 2-3 points shouldn't be difficult. Just consolidating the GOP vote (only has 78% right now) should do that.

[Ogre Mage]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

[TJ in Wisco]

I don't think Brown in OH should be in the toss-up category, yet.

But if the economy continues to flounder and Obama continues to lose popularity he may drag Brown down with him. Sherrod Brown is the perfect Democrat for Ohio, a liberal extremist who passes for a folksy populist. Despite that, Mandel will continue to improve in the polls because a lot of people aren't familiar with him yet. Now, if Mandel comes across poorly when introduced to the electorate he's not going to gain ground. However, if he comes across well, Brown's not a lock for re-election.

[Vosem]

As for Florida, the Greer trial will render LeMieux radioactive (and he already has base problems) and Hasner's dead in the water for now. I'd still put that Likely D in the interim.

Let's not forget McCalister was leading in the most recent PPP poll...

[redcommander]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

[Senator Snowstalker]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats (though they'd be due for a loss in either 2018 or 2024); win MA and NV, lose ND while narrowly holding on with Ben Nelson due to a rough GOP primary.

[redcommander]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats (though they'd be due for a loss in either 2018 or 2024); win MA and NV, lose ND while narrowly holding on with Ben Nelson due to a rough GOP primary.

That would be nearly impossible. It's one thing for the 2010 map being difficult for Republican gains, but Democrats have over 20 seats to defend to the Republicans 9. Republicans are a shoo in to at least gain 2 seats with all the opportunities they have this time around.

[Senator Snowstalker]

It's wishful thinking, of course, but remember 2 things:

1. The map has a disproportionately high number of blue states.
2. The Democratic incumbents considered "vulnerable" are strong enough for at least a toss-up.
3. Where things are going, I think an Obama mandate is in the cards, and like in 2008 he'd have some coattails.

[Jayhawker]

Theoretically, if everything became perfectly aligned (double-dip recession, electable Republicans getting nominated) a dozen seats, maybe more. I highly doubt that'll happen, but it could. On the flip side, if the economy strengthens and the GOP nominated a weak Presidential nominee, Democrats could also see a net gain, though it obviously would only be a seat or two.

[Ogre Mage]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

There also is the "potential" that the Democrats could actually net gain seats.  That does not mean it is realistic.  We heard this GOP happy talk before in 2010 about a double digit Senate pickup.  It turned out to be overblown. 

[BigSkyBob]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

There also is the "potential" that the Democrats could actually net gain seats.  That does not mean it is realistic.  We heard this GOP happy talk before in 2010 about a double digit Senate pickup.  It turned out to be overblown. 

And, the GOP happy talk about the House of Representatives turned out to be correct, and, they outperformed their own expectations for state legislative races.

[krazen1211]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

There also is the "potential" that the Democrats could actually net gain seats.  That does not mean it is realistic.  We heard this GOP happy talk before in 2010 about a double digit Senate pickup.  It turned out to be overblown. 

At this time in the cycle? The GOP thought Pat Toomey was a sure loser.

[Ogre Mage]

Would either krazen1211 or BigSkyBob like to place a bet that that GOP will net gain 10 or more Senate seats? (57+ GOP Senators in the next Congress)  Because I will wager that will not happen.

[BigSkyBob]

Would either krazen1211 or BigSkyBob like to place a bet that that GOP will net gain 10 or more Senate seats? (57+ GOP Senators in the next Congress)  Because I will wager that will not happen.

I don't have a prediction for 2012, yet. 2012 will probably be a trend year, and an anti-incumbent year. Right now, it could be anywhere between 45-60 seats, probably skewed to the upper end.

[MilesC56]

Would either krazen1211 or BigSkyBob like to place a bet that that GOP will net gain 10 or more Senate seats? (57+ GOP Senators in the next Congress)  Because I will wager that will not happen.

I don't have a prediction for 2012, yet. 2012 will probably be a trend year, and an anti-incumbent year. Right now, it could be anywhere between 45-60 seats, probably skewed to the upper end.

I'm gonna hold ya to that!

[Senator Snowstalker]

I'm predicting between 45 and 51 seats.

[You kip if you want to...]

This would be close to a realistic best case scenario for the GOP in 2008.  In a best case scenario I could see them getting a net gain of +7.

At this point, I would say a best case scenario for the Democrats would be a net loss of only one seat.

If Brown in OH is in the tossup category in spite of his lead in the polls, then I would argue that Brown in MA should be as well.

There is the potential for double digit gains you know with the 2012 landscape.

There also is the "potential" that the Democrats could actually net gain seats.  That does not mean it is realistic.  We heard this GOP happy talk before in 2010 about a double digit Senate pickup.  It turned out to be overblown. 

At this time in the cycle? The GOP thought Pat Toomey was a sure loser.

Against Arlen Specter, yes. Although, of course, it turnedo ut that Sestak did better than Arlen ever would've.

[timothyinMD]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats.

Hahahahahahahaha!!

[MilesC56]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats.

Hahahahahahahaha!!

Not that 100% agree with Snowstalker, but it is somewhat possible. They'd have to hold all their seats, except Nebraska and North Dakota, in addition to knocking off Heller, Brown and then possibly Hatch with Matheson or Indiana if Lugar loses the primary. That would be a net gain of 1.

[timothyinMD]

I think that, if the climate is good enough, the Democrats can actually gain seats.

Hahahahahahahaha!!

Not that 100% agree with Snowstalker, but it is somewhat possible. They'd have to hold all their seats, except Nebraska and North Dakota, in addition to knocking off Heller, Brown and then possibly Hatch with Matheson or Indiana if Lugar loses the primary. That would be a net gain of 1.

And the possibility of that is so close to zero you couldn't even see it on a microscope